2015 Audit

45 Pages·2015·5.65 MB·English

Automated Red-Light Photo
Enforcement Engineering Audit
Submitted by: Submitted to:
1700 Carnegie Ave
Santa Ana, CA 92705-5551 Sacramento County Sheriff’s
17J151728 Department
June 18, 2015
AUTOMATED RED-LIGHT ENFORCEMENT ENGINEERING AUDIT FINAL

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction ...........................................................................................................................1
1.1 Background ................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Enabling Legislation ...................................................................................................................... 5
2.0 Data Collection and Verification ..............................................................................................6
2.1 Field Conditions and Loops ........................................................................................................... 6
2.2 Signage .......................................................................................................................................... 7
2.3 Yellow Clearance Intervals ............................................................................................................ 8
2.4 Additional Field Observations ....................................................................................................... 8
3.0 Analysis ..................................................................................................................................9
3.1 System Operation ......................................................................................................................... 9
3.2 Maintenance ............................................................................................................................... 10
3.3 Yellow Light Change Interval ....................................................................................................... 10
3.4 Other Intersection Factors .......................................................................................................... 12
4.0 Conclusion and Recommendations ........................................................................................ 12

List of Figures
Figure 1: Existing Automated Red Light Enforcement Systems Locations .................................................... 3
Figure 2: New RLR Loops with Existing Loops ............................................................................................... 6
Figure 3: New RLR loops ............................................................................................................................... 6
Figure 4: SR-56 (CA) ...................................................................................................................................... 7
Figure 5: SR-58 (CA) ...................................................................................................................................... 7

List of Tables
Table 1: Existing Automated Red Light Enforcement Systems Locations ..................................................... 1
Table 2: California MUTCD Minimum Yellow Intervals ............................................................................... 11

Appendices
Appendix A Field Review Summary
Appendix B Yellow Output Comparison
Appendix C Clearance Interval Review

Page | i
AUTOMATED RED-LIGHT ENFORCEMENT ENGINEERING AUDIT FINAL

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Iteris performed an engineering audit of the Sacramento
Sheriff’s Department Red Light Photo Enforcement Program the
week of April 6, 2015. System data and field measurements were
collected and evaluated for accuracy and compliance with the
latest California Manual on Uniform Traffic Devices (California
MUTCD) and the California Vehicle Code (CVC).
1.1 Background
In order to provide 24-hour enforcement of red light violations,
Automated Red Light Enforcement systems (ARLE systems) were
installed at locations within the City and County of Sacramento.
The system was installed not only to provide automated red light running enforcement at select locations,
but also to increase safety at non-enforced locations by reminding drivers that such enforcements exist
in the area.
At the time this audit was conducted, there were 24 intersections with a total of 26 approaches equipped
with red light running (RLR) enforcement cameras with one approach that was not operational. The ARLE
systems are part of the Red Light Photo Enforcement Program, a partnership between the Sacramento
County Sheriff’s Department, California Highway Patrol (CHP), County of Sacramento, and City of
Sacramento. Table 1, below, provides a list of the intersections, the approaches equipped with red light
enforcement cameras, and their owning agency.
Table 1: Existing Automated Red Light Enforcement Systems Locations
OWNING APPROACH OF
NO AGENCY INTERSECTION NAME ENFORCEMENT
 NB Watt Ave
1 County Watt Avenue at Fair Oaks Boulevard
 WB Fair Oaks Blvd
2 County Watt Avenue at Arden Way  EB Arden Way
3 County Howe Avenue at Hurley Way  NB Howe Ave
4 County Martin Luther King Boulevard at 47th Avenue  WB 47th St*
5 County Madison Avenue at Sunrise Boulevard  EB Madison Ave
6 County Madison Avenue at Date Avenue  WB Madison Ave
7 County Florin Road at East Parkway  EB Florin Rd^
8 County Florin Road at Franklin Boulevard  WB Florin Rd
Page | 1
AUTOMATED RED-LIGHT ENFORCEMENT ENGINEERING AUDIT FINAL

OWNING APPROACH OF
NO AGENCY INTERSECTION NAME ENFORCEMENT
9 County Manzanita Avenue at Cypress Avenue  SB Manzanita Ave^
10 County El Camino Avenue at Eastern Avenue  EB El Camino Ave
11 County Florin Road at Lindale Drive  EB Florin Rd
12 County Elkhorn Boulevard at Don Julio Drive  EB Elkhorn Blvd
13 County Hwy 99 NB Off-Ramp at Calvine Road  EB Calvine Rd
14 County Auburn Avenue at Garfield Avenue (Not Operational)  WB Auburn Ave
15 City Mack Road at Center Parkway  EB Mack Rd
16 City Mack Road at Valley High Drive / La Mancha Way  WB Mack Rd
17 City 21st Street at Broadway  WB Broadway
18 City Alhambra Street at J Street  EB J St
19 City El Camino Avenue at Evergreen Street  EB El Camino Ave
 EB Fair Oaks Blvd
20 City Howe Avenue at Fair Oaks Boulevard
 SB Howe Ave*
21 City Folsom Boulevard at Power Inn Road / Howe Avenue  SB Howe Ave*
22 City 5th Street at I Street  WB I St
23 City Arden Way at Challenge Way  EB Arden Way
24 City 16th Street at W Street  NB 16th St
* Right-turn lane not equipped for red light running enforcement
^ Left-turn lane not equipped for red light running enforcement

Intersections listed above in Table 1 are also represented below in Figure 1.

Page | 2
AUTOMATED RED-LIGHT ENFORCEMENT ENGINEERING AUDIT FINAL

Figure 1: Existing Automated Red Light Enforcement Systems Locations

Page | 3
AUTOMATED RED-LIGHT ENFORCEMENT ENGINEERING AUDIT FINAL

The City of Sacramento began its program in 1999, and the County’s was started in 2001. In July 2003, the
Sheriff’s Department began managing the program for both the City and the County. Currently, officers
(CHP/Sacramento County Sheriff) alternate working at the Sheriff’s Department to operate and control
the program.

The Sheriff’s Department has an agreement with Redflex Traffic Systems (Redflex) to install and to
regularly maintain the RLR cameras. Redflex is paid a fixed amount for any installation and any fees
collected, per CVC section 21455.5, are not based on the number of citations or percentage of revenue
generated. Staff from the Sheriff’s department also visit the Redflex facilities in Arizona annually to ensure
that the facilities, staff, and equipment continue to meet their standards.

As part of the CVC section 21455.5 requirements, a governmental agency must
establish guidelines for the selection of a location. It is stated that, “Prior to
installing an automated traffic enforcement system after January 1, 2013, the
governmental agency shall make and adopt a finding of fact establishing that the
system is needed at a specific location for reasons related to safety.”

Installation of new RLR locations for the program are based on the following:
 Collision Data retrieved from Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System
(SWITERS)
 Video survey
 Police and community input
 Sacramento Sheriff’s Department approval with all program stakeholders

Stakeholders of the Red Light Enforcement Program are as follows:
 Sacramento Sheriff’s Department
 Sacramento County Department of Transportation (DOT)
 City of Sacramento DOT
 California Highway Patrol (CHP)

Once a particular intersection is raised as a major concern, SWITERS data is analyzed to determine what
the primary collision factor is and which direction/approach accidents happen most frequently at. If CVC
21453 (Red Light Violation) is the primary collision factor, consideration for the intersection begins the
review process.

If an approach is identified as problematic, having high RLR accident factors, a 12-hour video survey will
be conducted by Redflex. The video survey will assist in determining the number of red light violations for
that approach, adding valuable information for consideration of placement of an ARLE system.

Page | 4
AUTOMATED RED-LIGHT ENFORCEMENT ENGINEERING AUDIT FINAL

Before placement of an ARLE system, the Sacramento City or County Department of Transportation are
contacted to determine if other possible countermeasures or improvements have been implemented to
improve traffic safety and reduce the number of red light related accidents. For example, the City of
Sacramento maintains their own list of candidate locations for future red light running cameras based on
engineering and field evaluation of intersections with the highest number of red light running crashes.
These intersections would have already been evaluated, implemented, and monitored for the
effectiveness of any countermeasures to reduce red light running collisions. These cautious considerations
by the City or County can eliminate the need of RLR cameras. However, once all the above steps are
considered and completed and it is then determined that the approach is in fact a candidate for an ARLE
system, Redflex is deployed to evaluate the approach. Only after all above criteria are met and placement
of an ARLE system is needed and feasible, would the stakeholders of the program make a final decision to
install an ARLE system.
1.2 Enabling Legislation
ARLE systems are permitted by the CVC section 21455.5. An additional CVC section (21455.7) became
effective on January 1, 2002, requiring intersections with automated RLR cameras to meet or exceed the
California Department of Transportation’s (Caltrans) standards for yellow change intervals. The policies of
the City and County of Sacramento are that at intersections equipped with automated RLR cameras, all
approaches shall exceed Caltrans guidelines.
The California MUTCD, shown to the right, is the standard for all official traffic control devices, under
Section 11340.9(h) of California Government Code and Section 21400 of the CVC.
As of November 7, 2014 Caltrans adopted the California MUTCD 2014 edition
to provide for uniform standards and specifications for all official traffic
control devices in California. The 2014 edition includes the Federal Highway
Administration’s MUTCD 2009 edition dated December 19, 2009, including
Revisions 1 and 2, as amended for use in California. The California MUTCD
2014 also includes all policies on traffic control devices issued by Caltrans
since January 13, 2012, and other corrections and format changes that were
necessary to update the previous documents. A notable difference between
the 2012 and 2014 versions is the determination of the minimum required
yellow time for all signalized intersections.
Agencies have until August 1, 2015 to ensure the red-light running
approaches meet the latest requirements in the 2014 California MUTCD edition and until 2017 for all other
approaches (non-red-light enforced) to meet these guidelines. It should be noted that the differences in
required yellow times between the 2012 and 2014 edition is only applicable if 85th percentile speed
surveys are not available for the approach in which the yellow time is being calculated. Because these
speed surveys are available for all the approaches reviewed in this audit, the guideline used for this review
remains the same whether using the 2012 or 2014 calculations.
Page | 5
AUTOMATED RED-LIGHT ENFORCEMENT ENGINEERING AUDIT FINAL

2.0 DATA COLLECTION AND VERIFICATION
Field visits were conducted at the 26 ARLE system locations the week of April 6, 2015 to observe and verify
field conditions, loops, signage, and yellow change intervals. The data collection also included visiting with
the Sheriff’s department facility and staff, as well as the City and County Traffic Management Center (TMC)
to gather all necessary information.
2.1 Field Conditions and Loops
At all operational locations, it was verified that the RLR cameras and loops were in proper working
condition and are being maintained on a regular basis. No field review was conducted at the non-
operational location of Auburn Avenue and Garfield Avenue, which currently has radar detection. Loop
locations were not measured during this audit; however, field observations revealed that there were new
installed loops for the movements equipped for RLR enforcement, as shown in the design plans provided
by Redflex. Figure 2 is an example of new Redflex loops installed in between the existing stop-bar loop
detectors whereas Figure 3 is an example of new Redflex loops installed at a location that did not have
existing loop detection. Loops were verified to make sure they are still in place with no visual signs of
damage. All loop and camera locations were confirmed per the as-built plans provided for each location.
Figure 2: New RLR Loops with Existing Loops

Figure 3: New RLR loops

Page | 6
AUTOMATED RED-LIGHT ENFORCEMENT ENGINEERING AUDIT FINAL

2.2 Signage
As part of the CVC section 21455.5, effective as of January 1, 2013, the use of automated enforcement
systems is allowed if the system is identified by: “… signs posted within 200 feet of an intersection where
a system is operating that clearly indicate the system’s presence and are visible to traffic approaching
from all directions in which the automated traffic enforcement system is being utilized to issue citations.”
It is also important to note, from CVC 21455.5: “A governmental agency utilizing such a system does not
need to post signs visible to traffic approaching the intersection from directions not subject to the
automated traffic enforcement system.”
Each ARLE system location was observed to verify the signs were clearly visible, legible, and met the
requirements outlined in CVC section 21455.5. The notes taken at each location along with the
measurements collected for each sign are available in Appendix A.
There are two primary types of signs used in conjunction with the automated enforcement programs in
the City and the County of Sacramento, SR-56 and SR-58. Figure 4 and Figure 5, below, illustrate the
appearance of the enforcement signs. The sign in Figure 4 (SR-56) has a white background with black
letters and a multicolor traffic signal logo. Unlike SR-56, the sign in Figure 5 (SR-58) is not mandatory, but
was also observed at select locations throughout the City and County and clearly states the minimum fine
of a red light violation.

Figure 4: SR-56 (CA) Figure 5: SR-58 (CA)

Though signs are only required for the enforced approaches, as stated in the CVC, Sacramento has
provided additional signs within City/County limits as well as various non-enforced approaches to remind
drivers that the area is photo enforced.
Page | 7
AUTOMATED RED-LIGHT ENFORCEMENT ENGINEERING AUDIT FINAL

2.3 Yellow Clearance Intervals
As mandated in CVC section 21455.7, subdivision (a), “…the minimum yellow light change interval shall
be established in accordance with the Traffic Manual of the Department of Transportation” and a “yellow
light change interval may exceed the minimum interval established pursuant to subdivision (a)”.
In order to calculate the yellow clearance intervals and to ensure they are in compliance with the
California MUTCD, posted speed limit data was collected and verified in the field. Also, specific to each
agency’s guidelines, the County and the City provided speed
survey data containing necessary 85th percentile speeds.
Existing yellow clearance intervals, as they are currently
programmed in the field were also collected. If a traffic signal
controller was connected and communicating to the City or
County’s central system at their respective TMC, the yellow time
was uploaded directly from the controllers; otherwise, field visits
were required to obtain the yellow change interval for each RLR
approach directly from the traffic signal controllers. The yellow
time taken for each approach is available as part of Appendix A.
Note that the values presented in the appendix also reflect any
modifications made after the initial field visit, so that the values
included are the most concurrent (as of June 17, 2015).
Because the ARLE system collects the yellow output rather than from the programmed time in the traffic
signal controller, a review of the yellow interval to determine if there are any discrepancies between what
is programmed and what is being outputted was also performed. Redflex provided output files for each
RLR approach for a 24-hour period (April 7, 2015) to compare with the programmed yellow times. A
summary of the Redflex yellow output compared to the programmed yellow times collected is available
in Appendix B. As shown in the summary, the average for all locations were either equal to or higher than
the programmed time.
2.4 Additional Field Observations
Additional factors were observed in the field to determine whether or not there may be other conditions
which might cause a driver to inadvertently enter the intersection on a red phase. Although specific
measurements were not made, the following conditions were also checked in the field:
 Sight distance
 Traffic volumes
 Traffic speeds and regulatory signs
 Traffic signal display conditions – visibility, number of heads, placement
 Quality of pavement markings – Stop lines
 Geometric features – horizontal and vertical curves, land widths, etc.
Page | 8